Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Victoria O’Brien, acting without counsel, filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s order granting Rocket Mortgage LLC’s plea to the jurisdiction. She purported to file for Viscount David Cahal of Ir Express Trust and for herself in her representative capacity as trustee.
The court of appeals notified O’Brien that, because she was not a licensed attorney, she could not represent the trust or appear pro se in her representative capacity as trustee. It warned that the appeal could be dismissed unless an attorney appeared for the appellants by August 13, 2026. O’Brien responded that the trust’s terms did not require representation by licensed counsel, but no attorney entered an appearance or filed an amended notice of appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that a trust cannot appear through a trustee or other representative who is not a licensed attorney, and that a trustee may represent herself pro se only when litigating her own rights—not when acting in a representative capacity for the trust. Filing appellate documents for a trust constitutes the practice of law, which Texas law reserves to licensed attorneys.
The trust’s internal terms could not override Texas restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law. Because O’Brien was a nonattorney acting for the trust and no licensed attorney appeared after the court’s warning, the court dismissed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b) and (c).
Key Takeaways
- A nonlawyer trustee cannot represent a trust in a Texas court proceeding.
- The right to proceed pro se permits a person to litigate personal rights, not another party’s rights in a representative capacity.
- A trust provision purporting to dispense with licensed counsel cannot override Texas law governing the practice of law.
Why It Matters
Trustees pursuing Texas litigation or an appeal for a trust generally must retain licensed counsel. A nonlawyer trustee’s filing does not provide a viable substitute, even when the trust instrument purports to authorize self-representation.
The decision also illustrates the procedural consequence of failing to cure a representation defect after notice: the appellate court may dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of the underlying jurisdictional ruling.